Effectiveness of a semi-immersive virtual environment in understanding human-environment interactions

Cartography and Geographic Information Science

Volumn 36, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 367-384

  Edsall, Robert M ^a   Larson, Kelli L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Environmental perception; Virtual reality; Visualization

Indexed keywords

APRIORI; ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY; COMPLEX MODEL; CRITICAL AREA; DECISION MAKERS; EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE; ENVIRONMENTAL PERCEPTION; ENVIRONMENTAL PERCEPTIONS; ENVIRONMENTAL PHENOMENA; GROUNDWATER OVERDRAFT; HUMAN-ENVIRONMENT INTERACTION; IMMERSIVE VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS; POLICY MAKERS; SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY; SCIENTIFIC ISSUES; URBAN AREAS; URBAN HEAT ISLAND; USER TESTS; VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENTS;

FLUORINE CONTAINING POLYMERS; GROUNDWATER; HYDROGEOLOGY; SURVEYS; VIRTUAL REALITY; VISUALIZATION;

DECISION MAKING;

DECISION MAKING; ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE; PERCEPTION; PUBLIC ATTITUDE; URBAN AREA; VIRTUAL REALITY; VISUALIZATION;

ARIZONA; UNITED STATES;

EID: 72449139999     PISSN: 15230406     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1559/152304009789786317     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Barnett, M., T. Keating, L. Yamagata-Lynch, S. A. Barab, and K. E. Hay. 2005. Using virtual reality computer models to support student understanding of astronomical concepts. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching 24(4):333-56.
2. Bishop, I., and Lange, E. (eds). 2005. Visualization in landscape and environmental planning: Technology and applications. London: Taylor and Francis. 296 pp.
3. Bodum, L. 2005. Modelling virtual environments for geovisualization: A focus on representation. In:J. Dykes, A. M. MacEachren, and M.-J. Kraak (eds), Exploring geovisualization. Oxford: Elsevier. pp. 389-402.
4. Bricken, M. 1991. Virtual reality learning environments: Potentials and challenges. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics 25(3):178-84.
5. Carver, S., S. Frysinger, and R. Reitsma. 1996. Environmental modeling and collaborative spatial decision-making: Some thoughts and experiences arising from the 1-17 meeting. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling, NCGIA, University of California, Santa Barbara, California.
6. Davies, D., and D. Medyckyj-Scott. 1994. Introduction: The importance of human factors. In: H. M. Hearnshaw and D. J. Unwin (eds), Visualization in geographic information systems. New York, New York: John Wiley and Sons. pp. 189-92.
7. Dede, C. 1995. The evolution of constructivist learning environments: Immersion in distributed, virtual worlds. Educational Technology 35:46-52.
8. Dede, C., M. C. Salzman, and R. Bowen Loftin. 1996. ScienceSpace: Virtual realities for learning complex and abstract scientific concepts. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, 30 Mar-3 Apr. 1996, Santa Clara, California, pp. 246-52, 271.
9. Demiralp, C., C. D. Jackson, D. B. Karelitz, Z. Song, and D. H. Laidlaw. 2006. CAVE and fishtank virtualreality displays: A qualitative and quantitative comparison. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 12(3):323-30.
10. Durlach, N., G. Allan, R. Darken, R. L. Garnett, J. Loomis, J. Templeman, and T. E. von Weigand. 2000. Virtual environments and the enhancement of spatial behavior. Presence (Cambridge, Mass.) 9(6):593-615.
11. Fisher, P., and Unwin, D. (eds). 2002. Virtual reality in geography. London: Taylor and Francis. 416 pp.
12. Fisher, S. H., J. V. Dempsey, and R. T. Marousky. 1997. Data visualization, preference and use of twodimensional and three-dimensional graphs. Social Science Computer Review 15(3):256-63.
13. Fung T., Y. Leung, and H. Lin. 2004. From paper maps to virtual reality: A view from Hong Kong. The Cartographic Journal 41(3):261-4.
14. Gershon, N., and S. G. Eick. 1997. Information visualization. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 17(4):29-31.
15. Golledge, R. G. and R. J. Stimson. 1997. Spatial Behavior: A Geographic Perspective. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
16. Koh, G., T. E. von Weigand, R. L. Garnett, N. Durlach, and B. Shinn-Cunningham. 1999. Use of virtual environments for acquiring configurational knowledge about specific real-world spaces. Presence (Cambridge, Mass.) 8(6):632-56.
17. Larson, K. L. and R. M. Edsall. in press. The impact of visual information on perceptions of water resource problems and management alternatives. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management.
18. Leiserowitz, A. A. 2005. American risk perceptions: Is climate change dangerous? Risk Analysis 25(6):1433-42.
19. Leiserowitz, A. 2006. Climate change risk perception and policy preferences: The role of affect, imagery and values. Climatic Change 77:45-72.
20. Li, Z., and B. L. Grabowski. 2006. Web-based animation or static graphics: Is the extra cost of animation worth it? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 15(3):329-47.
21. Limniou, M., D. Roberts, and N. Papadopoulos. 2008. Full immersive virtual environment CAVE in chemistry education. Computers & Education 51(2):584-93.
22. Mak, A., P. C. Lai, R. K.-H. Kwong, and S. Leung. 2005. Too much or too little: Visual considerations of public engagement tools in environment impact assessments. In: S. Bres and R. Laurini (eds), VISUAL 2005, lecture notes in computer science 3736.. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Springer-Verlag. pp. 189-202.
23. Mayer, R. E., J. Heiser, and S. Lonn. 2001. Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning:When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology 93(1):187-98.
24. Mayer, R. E., and R. Moreno. 2002. Aids to computerbased multimedia learning. Learning and Instruction 12(1):107-19.
25. McDaniels, T. L., L. J. Axelrod, N. S. Cavanagh, and P. Slovic. 1997. Perception of ecological risk to water environments. Risk Analysis 17(3):341-52.
26. Nyerges, T., P. Jankowski, and C. Drew. 2002. Datagathering strategies for social-behavioral research about participatory geographical system use. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 16(1):1-11.
27. Ozawa, C. P. 1996. Science in environmental conflicts. Sociological Perspectives 39(2):219-230.
28. Paivio, A. 1990. Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 336 pp.
29. Ragusa. J. M., and G. M. Bochenek, 2001. Collaborative Virtual Design Environments: Introduction. Communications of the ACM 44(12):40-43.
30. Reitsma, R. F. 1996. Structure and support of waterresources management and decision-making. Journal of Hydrology (Amsterdam) 177(1):253-68.
31. Schwarz, M. and M. Thompson. 1990. Divided We Stand: Redefining Politics, Technology and Choice. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
32. Slovic, P. 1987. Perception of risk. Science 236:280-285.
33. Slovic, P., J. H. Flynn, and M. Layman. 1991. Perceived risk, trust and the politics of nuclear waste. Science 254(5038):1603-7.
34. Stone, R. 2001. Virtual reality for interactive training: An industrial practitioner's viewpoint. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 55:699-711.
35. Taylor, G. L., and J. F. Disinger. 1997. The potential role of virtual reality in environmental education. The Journal of Environmental Education 28:38-43.
36. Usoh, M., and M. Slater. 1995. An exploration of immersive virtual environments. Endeavour 19(1):34-8.
37. Wakefield, S. E. and S. J. Elliot. 2003. Constructing the news: The role of local newspapers in environmental risk communication. The Professional Geographer 55(2):216-226.
38. Wilson, D. 1994. A key for entering virtual worlds. The Chronicle of Higher Education 41: Al 8-9.
39. White, D. D., and T. E. Hall. 2006. Public understanding of science in pacific northwest salmon recovery policy. Society & Natural Resources 19(4):305-20.
40. Zigurs, I., R. Reitsma, C. Lewis, R. Hubscher, and C. Hayes. 1999. Accessibility of computer-based simulation models in inherently conflict-laden negotiations. Group Decision and Negotiation 8:511-33.